Justice

“To ask whether a society is just is to ask how it distributes the things we prize–income and wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honors. A just society distributes these goods in the right way; it gives each person his or her due. The hard questions begin when we ask what people are due, and why.”

Sandel explores the question of what people are due, and why, by presenting three main theories of justice and how they differ in their answers. Through hypotheticals and real-life examples, he explores what a just society consists of for a utilitarian, libertarian, Kantian, egalitarian, Aristotelian, communitarian, and others who advocate for virtue to be integrated into politics. The debates that arise from these competing views support Sandel’s assertion that these are “hard questions” for any society to answer. 

“Some of our debates reflect disagreement about what it means to maximize welfare or respect freedom or cultivate virtue. Others involve disagreement about what to do when these ideals conflict. Political philosophy cannot resolve these disagreements once and for all. But it can give shape to the arguments we have, and bring moral clarity to the alternatives we confront as democratic citizens.”

Throughout the book, Sandel presents questions without providing easy answers. Even when he presents his own views in greater detail in the last two chapters of the book, he still leaves questions open about how his theory would be implemented. Rather than providing definitive answers, his goal seems to be to bring greater moral clarity to the disagreements we face as a society.

“Bentham, an English moral philosopher and legal reformer, founded the doctrine of utilitarianism. Its main idea is simply stated and intuitively appealing: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain.” 

This is Sandel’s summary of the utilitarian approach to justice. Chapter 2 of the book discusses utilitarianism in detail, along with two primary objections to it: (1) that it does not give enough weight to human dignity and individual rights, and (2) that it attempts to reduce everything in life to a single standard of value. Subsequent chapters of the book contrast the utilitarian approach to other newly-presented alternative theories in analyzing particular hypotheticals or real-life controversies.

“Mill saves utilitarianism from the charge that it reduces everything to a crude calculus of pleasure and pain, but only by invoking a moral ideal of human dignity and personality independent of utility itself.”

Sandel discusses John Stuart Mill’s take on utilitarianism in the context of the second of the two primary objections to utilitarianism that Sandel discusses: the idea that it reduces everything in life to the same pleasure-pain calculus. Sandel explains that Mill has to go beyond utilitarian morality to address this objection, and he does so by bringing moral ideas into the mix. In that way, Sandel is presenting Mill’s approach as akin to the approaches later in the book that are not morally neutral, such as Aristotle’s. 

“Libertarians favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulation, not in the name of economic efficiency but in the name of human freedom. Their central claim is that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty–the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people’s rights to do the same.”

This passage is Sandel’s summary of the libertarian approach to justice. Sandel focuses on this approach in Chapter 3 of the book. At this stage, he mostly contrasts the libertarian approach to the utilitarian approach discussed in Chapter 2. In later parts of the book, he returns to both of these theories as he compares and contrasts additional theories.

“Many who reject laissez-faire economics invoke the idea of self-ownership in other domains. This may explain the persisting appeal of libertarian ideas, even for people who are sympathetic to the welfare state.”

In this passage and other parts of the book, Sandel points out fundamental views that political opponents might share. He emphasizes throughout that philosophical approaches do not necessarily fall along political party lines. This is one of those examples: the idea that liberals invoke self-ownership when thinking about social issues, even though they reject that approach when thinking about economic issues.

“Many of our most heated debates about justice involve the role of markets: Is the free market fair? Are there some goods that money can’t buy–or shouldn’t? If so, what are these goods, and what’s wrong with buying and selling them?” 

This sets up the exploration of these concepts related to the morality of markets, the topic of Chapter 4. He contrasts the utilitarian and libertarian approaches when applied to two heated debates in particular: whether to have a military draft and the morality of paying a surrogate mother to have a child.

“According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. What matters is the motive, and the motive must be of a certain kind. What matters is doing the right thing because it’s right, not for some ulterior motive.”

Chapter 5 of the book focuses on Kant’s philosophy, and this passage is Sandel’s summary of a central tenet of that philosophy. Kant rejects utilitarianism on the ground that it focuses on wants and desires, rather than doing the right thing. Specifically, for Kant, only performing an action based on a motive of duty is moral.

“For Kant, self-respect and respect for other persons flow from one and the same principle. The duty of respect is a duty we owe to persons as rational beings, as bearers of humanity. It has nothing to do with who in particular the person may be.”

This passage draws another comparison between Kant’s views and utilitarianism. Because people are to be treated as ends in themselves, they cannot be sacrificed to the greater good as utilitarianism would call for. Sandel notes that this view forms the basis for a doctrine of universal human rights.

“This is Rawls’s idea of the social contract–a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. Rawls invites us to ask what principles we–as rational, self-interested persons–would choose if we found ourselves in that position.”

Sandel devotes Chapter 6 to Rawls’s approach to justice. Having discussed libertarians in Chapter 3 and Kant in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 is the third chapter of the book devoted to a freedom-based view of justice. This passage describes the thought experiment that Rawls thought would lead us to develop just principles for society.

“Whether or not his theory of justice ultimately succeeds, it represents the most compelling case for a more equal society that American political philosophy has yet produced.”

Here, Sandel is referring to Rawls’s theory, under which we would determine the nature of a just society by stripping away our differences and deciding what rules we would choose if we did not know our position in society. Rawls believed we would then choose to make use of particular advantages we have only if they benefit society as a whole. Sandel sees this as the most compelling case for equality. 

“But let’s set aside the constitutional question and focus directly on the moral question: Is it unjust to consider race and ethnicity as factors in hiring or university admissions?” 

Sandel devotes an entire chapter to the arguments for and against affirmative action, focusing on the moral arguments rather than the legal ones. To answer the question whether it is unjust to consider race and ethnicity in hiring or admissions, he discusses three primary arguments in favor of affirmative action and two in opposition. This question is used as a vehicle to review the overall moral philosophies discussed earlier in the book, such as utilitarianism and libertarianism, in the context of the affirmative action debate.  

“Tying debates about justice to arguments about honor, virtue, and the meaning of goods may seem a recipe for hopeless disagreement. People hold different conceptions of honor and virtue. The proper mission of social institutions–whether universities, corporations, the military, the professions, or the political community generally–is contested and fraught. So it is tempting to seek a basis for justice and rights that keeps its distance from these controversies.” 

This is a preview of a criticism of Sandel’s own viewpoint that he takes up in later chapters of the book, in which he argues for a society in which questions of morality are not separated from political and societal questions. Having already discussed the views of Rawls and Kant, who attempt to take a neutral position on questions of morality, this statement serves as a transition to Sandel’s chapter on Aristotle, one of the key philosophers who integrates a vision of the good life into his political philosophy.

“Those who believe that universities exist to celebrate and reward scholarly excellence alone are likely to reject affirmative action, whereas those who believe universities also exist to promote certain civic ideals may well embrace it.”

Tying this chapter on Aristotle’s views to the previous chapter on affirmative action, this statement is part of a discussion of the way Aristotle would approach affirmative action. Because Aristotle’s approach involves considering the telos, or purpose, of an activity or institution, he would consider the purpose of a university before deciding whether that purpose is served by affirmative action. In this statement, Sandel is pointing out that different people may believe that a university serves different purposes, which would lead them to different conclusions about affirmative action.

“Debates about justice and rights are often, unavoidably, debates about the purpose of social institutions, the goods they allocate, and the virtues they honor and reward. Despite our best attempts to make law neutral on such questions, it may not be possible to say what’s just without arguing about the nature of the good life.”

This statement, which is part of the chapter on Aristotle, follows a discussion of a lawsuit in which a professional golfer with a physical disability challenged the Professional Golfers’ Association’s refusal to allow him to use a cart during tournaments. For Aristotle, this question requires an analysis of the essential nature of golf as an activity. Sandel, however, points out that the debate over this case really involved our conceptions of honor and virtue. Those who opposed letting the golfer use the cart wanted golf to be recognized as requiring athleticism and stamina. If they were only concerned about fairness, they would have just decided that everyone could use carts, but that was not what was at stake. Therefore, questions of honor and virtue creep into these debates.

“In fact, one of the distinctive features of American political debate is that the ideals of the neutral state and the freely choosing self can be found across the political spectrum. Much of the argument over the role of government and markets is a debate about how best to enable individuals to pursue their ends for themselves.”

This statement is in a chapter about the duties we owe one another, such as apologizing and paying reparations for wrongs committed by previous generations. Here, Sandel is noting that the idea that we only have the obligations that we freely choose to take on is not limited to a particular political party. Egalitarian liberals and libertarian conservatives often share these views on certain issues.

“Whether egalitarian or libertarian, theories of justice that aspire to neutrality have a powerful appeal. They offer hope that politics and law can avoid becoming entangled in the moral and religious controversies that abound in pluralist societies. And they express a heady conception of human freedom that casts us as the authors of the only moral obligations that constrain us. Despite its appeal, however, this vision of freedom is flawed. So is the aspiration to find principles of justice that are neutral among competing conceptions of the good life.”

This is the point in the book at which Sandel begins to make his own views known to a larger extent than the earlier parts of the book, in which he largely sticks to an objective presentation of each philosophical approach and its flaws. Here, he takes a stance against both the egalitarian and libertarian views of justice. In this chapter, he presents some of his criticisms of those views; in the next chapter, he presents his own viewpoint more affirmatively.

“Many of the most hotly contested issues of justice and rights can’t be debated without taking up controversial moral and religious questions.”

This statement symbolizes Sandel’s rejection of the egalitarian and libertarian view that the ideal theory of justice should aspire to be neutral on questions of morality. Sandel uses examples throughout the book showing that those questions arise in various debates over justice, and he concludes that we should not attempt to separate questions of morality from questions of justice and rights.

“Asking democratic citizens to leave their moral and religious convictions behind when they enter the public realm may seem a way of ensuring toleration and mutual respect. In practice, however, the opposite can be true. Deciding important public questions while pretending to a neutrality that cannot be achieved is a recipe for backlash and resentment. A politics emptied of substantive moral engagement makes for an impoverished civic life. It is also an open invitation to narrow, intolerant moralisms. Fundamentalists rush in where liberals fear to tread.”

Here, Sandel is arguing that it is futile to try to separate morality from politics, so we should not try or pretend that we are doing so. Rather, he believes that we should explicitly include questions of morality in the public debate. Otherwise, he observes that political liberals will be ceding the moral debate to conservatives or others who tend toward religious fundamentalism.

“The debate over same-sex marriage is fundamentally a debate about whether gay and lesbian unions are worthy of the honor and recognition that, in our society, state-sanctioned marriage confers. So the underlying moral question is unavoidable.”

In this chapter, Sandel presents his theory of justice and the common good. Using the same-sex marriage debate as an example, he argues that the moral and religious issues raised by same-sex marriage cannot be set aside in the public debate. Whether one believes that only opposite-sex marriages should be recognized or that same-sex marriages should also be recognized, the arguments for or against bring in views of morality.

“A just society can’t be achieved simply by maximizing utility or by securing freedom of choice. To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.” 

Sandel rejects the utilitarian, libertarian, and egalitarian views presented earlier in the book in favor of a more Aristotelian approach, in which morality is part of the political debate. He believes that the utilitarian approach suffers by making justice a matter of distilling all values down into a quantitative calculation. The libertarian and egalitarian views suffer, in his view, because they are neutral on the subject of people’s preferences, beyond a few fundamental rights that should be respected.

“Justice is inescapably judgmental.” 

This is Sandel’s view in a nutshell: that principles of justice cannot be divorced from ideas of morality, honor, and virtue. Thus, unlike the utilitarian, egalitarian, and libertarian approaches, which accept people’s preferences as they are, Sandel believes that we must pass judgment on them when considering political questions.

“Justice is not only about the way to distribute things. It is also about the way to value things.”

In some of the earlier chapters in the book, Sandel’s focus was on how particular philosophies approach the idea of achieving a just distribution of things throughout society. Here, he is reiterating that he does not believe it is possible to reach a just conclusion to debates on social issues without incorporating values like honor and virtue into the debates.